Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards - <AUTHOR> http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime <comment><USER3> Radley Balko talks about this article and has links to more details of past asset forfeiture abuses in Oklahoma:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2016/06/08/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2016/06/08/new-frontiers-in-asset-forfeiture/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's a fun little video from the manufacturer extolling the virtues and showing a demo of their device: [https://youtu.be/XYbgnCi7NYI](https://youtu.be/XYbgnCi7NYI)

These are some truly evil people. Apparently they can only target prepaid cards with this thing, which unsurprisingly will disproportionately affect people with lower incomes (the "unbanked"). According to the manufacturer's FAQ [1]:

 _Intel™ and ERAD-Recovery™ will only retrieve balances from open loop prepaid debit cards. Debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed using the ERAD-Intel™ or ERAD-Recovery™ system._

Law enforcement already depends heavily upon lower income neighborhoods to justify their existence, and upon criminal convictions of poor people that can't defend themselves to keep up demand for prison and jail guards. Now they want to take the money of those they can't arrest, knowing that their targets cannot afford to hire lawyers to get it back.

[1] [https://www.erad-group.com/faqs](https://www.erad-group.com/faqs)

<comment><USER5> Yes, evil. As is Sergeant Rob Hain (of Chicago) who uploaded this...

"Sheriff's Deputy Ron Hain improperly detained Marsh after issuing him a warning and continued questioning him when he should have been free to leave, Barsanti ruled. The questioning led to Marsh's admission he was carrying a gun, which prompted further searches of his truck, phones, GPS and eventually the storage lockers."

"The discovery was made by exploiting the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights," Barsanti said. "He was illegally detained in a second seizure without cause." [1]

"Seized over 4,000 lbs of cannabis, over 50 kilograms of cocaine, over 50 kilograms of heroin, and over $1,000,000 of drug-related currency." [2]

1 [https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160406/news/160409204/](https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160406/news/160409204/)

2 [https://archive.is/Bf1ss](https://archive.is/Bf1ss)

<comment><USER4> From [1].... _"All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine," Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt._

Desert Snow created civil forfeiture training seminars for law enforcement. Black Asphalt is a system "that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop."

Now, he's stealing debit cards. This guy is quite the civil forfeiture innovator.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop- and-seize/)

<comment><USER5> Owning a business related and supposedly selling to law enforcement while being employed by the force... Conflict of interest, anyone?

<comment><USER6> That's probably only a conflict on interest if they are involved in making purchasing decisions. Your mileage may vary. Always ask your ethics councillor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the article:

        State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that
        removes due process and the belief that a suspect is
        presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've
        already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing
        the system.

        "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer
        survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being
        taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken.
        We've seen where the money goes and how it's been
        misspent," Loveless said.

If State Sen. Loveless's statement is accurate, it appears that these victims were unable to get the charges reversed by their banks' fraud departments.

So what would this device look like? Is it performing ACH or wire transfer transactions? Or is this just sending card information to the company, which then automates the state government's garnishment process?

I'll be interested to get the full story when details are available.

I'm glad there's some pushback from the state legislature!

<comment><USER8> > If State Sen. Loveless's statement is accurate

As someone who is closely following the topic I would say he is pretty accurate.

Most of these laws are passed claiming it is meant to target hardened criminals. Good people like us think it is okay to take away any rights of people who we consider as bad. Given the choice cops will not knock down the door of Drug dealer known to have automatic rifles at his home but some poor old cancer patient who is unlikely to resist or cry.

These problems are not a creation of police. These are created by good people like us who do not empathize with criminals, minorities and other groups which by default consider "less human".

<comment><USER9> > These problems are not a creation of police. These are created by good > people like us who do not empathize with criminals, minorities and other > groups which by default consider "less human".

I agree that the problem is considering others as "less human" but I wouldn't exclude the police from that!

<comment><USER8> I understand your sentiment. But I think as a society we have allowed the legal system to evolve in a way that only Bullies will become and thrive as cops and narcissist jerks will become public prosecutors. They are problem but they are more of a side-effect of we not standing up for other people's liberty.

<comment><USER10> Some of us think there are good people, who have rights, and bad people, who deserve to have rights taken from them.

Some of us think there are people with power we need to impress and then there are people without power we can take from them whatever we want.

Some of us think we are all human beings and everyone deserves to be a part of society, to be seen as human beings with human wants, needs and human emotions, even when they do things that harm other people. And whether they even do that, is not for us to judge.

The first group needed people who were willing to take things from the bad guys, and picked the second group as police and prosecutors.

That's how we're in this situation today.

Your child ask you if they can go to your donald-trump-loving-women-should- stay-in-kitchen neighbour's house to play with friends. Do you:

1\. Change your child's school so they don't mix with the 'wrong sort'. You're afraid what your social circle think if your children mix with children of people like that.

2\. Your neighbours are racists and sexists. Petition their kids to be kicked out from your kids' school. They don't deserve an education.

3\. Let your child go play with them, then if your child has a positive experience, let him go again next time. If not, protect the child from the consequences of not going next time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Symptom of a bigger problem: nobody in the criminal justice system is punished for making the wrong move. There is no law enforcement downside to civil asset forfeiture. Officer-involved shootings are discouraged from prosecution or otherwise involve highly-paid "expert" witnesses saying the officer had no other choice - at taxpayer expense.

Prosecutors are valued by the number of wins, not by how many innocent people are spared the gauntlet of the American justice system.

Prisons (especially private prisons) are rewarded for high recidivism rates, instead of being punished for wasting taxpayer money on an expensive and brutal daycare.

If the state does badly enough it can get sued. So the taxpayers foot the bill while the offenders are free to do as they do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: prevent this kind of garbage from happing without consequence by mandating docked wages/pension benefits to pay for all or part of lawsuit damages. Change the incentives and people will change themselves.

<comment><USER11> Bonus question: In countries that are still exempt from highway police robbery such as in Europe, what can we do to avoid gliding towards it? Isn't HPR a natural evolution of the increased number of police agents after massive terrorist attacks, like the two we've just had in France?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Simple: pay for things you need.

Over the last few decades the American people have been conned into this idea that government is fundamentally too big and needs to be shrunk because of reasons. People save a few measly percentage points on taxes that help pay for the axle damage on their car after being driven over roads that are no longer repaired.

Municipalities had to find ways to recoup costs from slashed state and federal budgets, which is why there is such a big problem in poor, mostly black American cities, as people are pulled over and fined up the ass for every possible infraction just so the city can afford itself.

This kind of crap has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with fiscal irresponsibility.

<comment><USER12> _Municipalities had to find ways to recoup costs from slashed state and federal budgets_

When was the last time you saw _any_ gov't budget go down? I'd say never.

The gov't has more than enough money. The problem is where and how they spend it.

<comment><USER13> Other than _every month_ in my home state of Kansas. Of course, that is related to much larger issues, but the same thing could be said for a number of other states in the midwest to a lesser degree. And those that aren't going down, are just treading water by pushing the costs down to the local governments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This reads like The Onion. I can't believe they're serious.

>"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized.

... Legit reason? How am I supposed to prove where every cent came from? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

<comment><USER15> You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. So there's no "innocent until proven guilty" for inanimate objects.

Despicable, and akin to highway robbery in my opinion.

<comment><USER16> This is flatly incorrect. This is a _civil_ proceeding, neither you nor your property are charged with a crime. Instead, a civil (not criminal) forfeiture proceeding is initiated against your property.

I'm not just being pedantic, this is part of why it's so incredibly fucked. They have, no exaggeration, taken a portion of the criminal legal system with all the constraints and due process requirements there, excised it with a legislative scalpel and grafted it back on to the civil system.

I honestly to this day don't understand why government is allowed any access at all to the civil system as a plaintiff, at least not beyond the local level.

Oh wait, yes I do understand: It's specifically to fuck the people over.

<comment><USER17> Sue a contractor for not upholding your contract with the federal / state government? Like road building or whatever else.

<comment><USER16> I have to imagine there's a giant pile of (criminal) laws they could use to prosecute someone who's trying to defraud the government. But your point is still well-taken, and it's kind of academic anyway - it's an incredibly valuable (and lucrative) tool for the government, of course they're not going to give it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> And the scanner maker gets a 7% cut. What could go wrong: "the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes"

<comment><USER19> Time to lookup ERAD Inc. online. Fun times ahead!

<comment><USER20> I'm already spinning up a comprehensive FOIA request with MuckRock.com. Feel free to reply to my comment if anyone would like to collaborate.

<comment><USER21> Can you include something like this?

"What states does ERAD currently have contracts with? With what states does ERAD anticipate contracts to be signed in the next 180 days, and for all of these states, what percentages will ERAD be earning on funds seized?"

<comment><USER20> I'd need to FOIA every police department in order to do this :/ Not scalable. I _can_ create a template that can be used whenever its discovered which police departments are using their services.

I'm in touch with the news station that has the contract, so I should be able to get it without an additional FOIA request. Once I have that, I'll recurse further if necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _> Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money._

Given the low-threshold for seizure and how we've seen civil-asset forfeiture exercised by law enforcement, that's terrifying.

<comment><USER23> Agreed:

 _" We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said._

It boggles the mind that this doesn't violate due process.

<comment><USER24> The despicable logic they use is that they're not charging the person with a crime (because people have due process rights), they're charging an inanimate object, the money, the car, etc. Property doesn't have due process rights, apparently.

Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes".

<comment><USER25> > Property doesn't have due process rights,

Apparently, property doesn't really belong to us.

<comment><USER26> try not paying your property tax and see what happens. Deeds mean nothing. Receipts mean nothing. Registration means nothing. The State owns everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a copy of the contract that the OHP with ERAD Group:

[http://oklahomawatch.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/files/2016/06/E...](http://oklahomawatch.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/files/2016/06/ERADContractBid.pdf)

Highlights:

* ERAD is taking 7.7% of all funds seized.

* Anywhere between 9.95 and 14.95 per each virtual terminal used to scan for the funds.

* $1000-ish per physical terminal used.

<comment><USER28> Searching for "debit" brings up this:

> In addition to presenting the value associated with a card, the terminal > will read other card types such as credit and debit cards. While no value > can be provided, the terminal will display a "card not supported" message to > alert the trooper that this is not a prepaid card. The trooper can then > compare the four digits displayed on the terminal with the last four digits > shown on the face of the card to determine if the card has been cloned. If > the last four digits on the face of the card do not match the four digits > displayed on the terminal, the trooper should note the discrepancy and > pursue further action in the investigation.

I'm not really sure why they compare the last 4 digits to detect a clone, that seems wrong to me. But in any case, that strongly implies that they can't seize from debit cards linked to bank accounts. They can only seize from prepaid cards.

<comment><USER29> "I'm not really sure why they compare the last 4 digits to detect a clone, that seems wrong to me."

It catches lazy counterfeiting. Stamp a whole bunch of cards with the same number and info, while the magstripe is what gets read and is the real account you're stealing from, the theory being that no-one really cares about the number printed on the card.

Some retailers do this too, ask or enter the last four of the card to make sure the imprint matches the magstripe, as if they don't it's most likely a cloned card.

<comment><USER30> I particularly enjoy when a cashier asks me to read the last 4 digits of the card, rather than following the instructions on the terminal (which say something like "Give card to cashier...").

<comment><USER31> Oh. I had no idea why they did this. That makes sense. I guess I just figured it was so easy to PROPERLY clone and stamp a card, that it didn't cross my mind..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That is physically revolting.

First you have civil-asset forfeiture that let's police seize money from you when you are carrying large amounts of cash (with a generous false positive rate potentially disastrous to victims).

Now to get around that, you could try handling everything by card or bank transaction (unless you're one of the unfortunate few without access to a bank account due to low credit rating or other legitimate reasons). And now they can seize that too?

That's not ripe for abuse, that's designed for abuse.

As a non-American, what's wrong with your country?

<comment><USER33> A whole lot is wrong. I was born here and love the country, but increasingly fear for my safety and well-being: our employer pays nearly $20,000 per year for NHS-equivalent health insurance (two adults, no children), basic prescriptions cause multi-month fights due to claim denials on drugs my doctor instructed me to take, patent trolling is endemic and a real threat to small bootstrapped companies, a pathological liar is one step away from the White House and lending legitimacy to anti-first-amendment and white supremacist groups, literal highway robbery is real, and as best as I can tell money has come to be held above life itself.

I'm profoundly disillusioned, and not sure where to go from here.

<comment><USER11> You forgot: the TSA, the "warning shots in the chest" (it's a meme), the 6% of black people currently in prison, the 1% of all population currently in prison, the freedom you export (another meme - yes I'm talking about the drone-based assinations outsourced to private companies), and the NSA patently ignoring any interpretation-by-a-reasonable-man of the constitution. But it really cheers my heart that there are so many people gathered on HN who see through the problems.

Trump is only the natural leader to this army of thugs, exactly like in 1934 in Germany. Let's hope that if your country falls into that trap, there will be an even bigger country to come and save you, like you did for us in 1944.

<comment><USER34> _Let 's hope that if your country falls into that trap, there will be an even bigger country to come and save you, like you did for us in 1944._

That would be Russia, China, or Canada.

<comment><USER35> Historically, Canada has always been a release valve of sorts for abuses of the US. Just look at the Vietnam war or (in a much larger sense) the underground railroad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >The largest part that we have found ... the biggest benefit has been the identity theft,

Oh, so if I have a card in someone else's name, you'll charge it, thus causing someone who doesn't even know about it to lose?

Any lawyers here want to weigh in on whether this would be identity theft/credit card fraud/etc on the part of the police and hence illegal? Isn't scanning/charging a card without authorization illegal?

<comment><USER37> This is the most interesting quote. How do these devices help in the case of identity theft?!

How can charging a card help either the bank or the account owner in the case of police apprehending a carder?

The only possiblity that comes to mind is that the police empty the cardholder's account and then later return that money minus the device manufacturer's 7.7% cut?!

<comment><USER36> I guess if they bought prepaid card with stolen credit cards, then the police would empty those cards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Civil asset forfeiture needs at least these reforms:

1) Police departments cannot keep anything they seize (or proceeds from its sale/liquidation). Incentives matter. If the funds need to go somewhere, they should be assigned by lottery so they're not a solution to anyone's problems. Or, perhaps have them go to the public defender's office, which is going to need them because...

2) There absolutely has to be due process here. "Civil" is a loophole- technicality if the reason for the seizure is a suspicion that the asset was involved in a crime. PDs should be provided for those who don't have their own counsel, and burden of proof should be on the state.

(I know, sending the funds to the PDs office could create a conflict of interest. A straightforward arrangement wouldn't work; there'd have to be a likely state-level layer of indirection and some stipulations incentivizing the hiring of more staff rather than inflating existing staff salaries much beyond the current exorbitant premiums PDs command. :/ )

</comment><comment><USER39> Thus begins a new round of escalation and avoidance - cash is seized? No longer carry it. Credit Cards maxed? Keep it in a separate account and load only as required. In an account but you can direct funds from your phone? Hand that over.

At some point you just rely on biometrics for every transaction, it turns into an automated shakedown scheme or you just learn to avoid the state of Oklahoma.

<comment><USER40> What do you think will happen if you're arrested with a thumbprint lock on your phone? They may not be able to force you to recite your password (at least without lengthy legal proceedings beforehand), but they can certainly grab your finger and use it to unlock the device. They may not be able to do this if you've only been detained, but I wouldn't chance it.

<comment><USER41> when you are pulled over you turn the phone OFF.

Its simple and its fast.

<comment><USER34> On the other hand, when I'm pulled over, I definitely want my phone to be recording audio.

<comment><USER42> Agreed. Opening the settings and disabling the fingerprint scanner would be easier and allow you to still use the device to record audio.

<comment><USER43> And then you get shot because the cop saw you "reaching for a gun" instead of putting your hands in view on the wheel as soon as you're stopped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I come from an Asian country, we are used to bribes, crooked politicians, government workers etc etc.

To me the USA was the place where Neil Armstrong lived, it was the country that gave me so much that I was thankful for, it was a country where the words "Freedom of speech" ruled above everything. To me it was the country I wanted to be in if I had a wish.

Little by little, that idea I had of the united states is being changed, may be its my fault since I idealised the USA too much. May be its the news I read about, large scale surveillance, government officials who has no regard for civil liberties, people more powerful than the FBI, people above the law, power crazed security guards at airports etc etc.

I really really dislike this, wish I would once again get to believe that there is a place where people are treated right.

<comment><USER45> I once worked with a woman who immigrated from Russia who had learned computer science on punch cards. She was always full of energy and happy to be working on interesting project _in the USA_ , because that kind of thing did not happen in the USSR. In that environment, you learned to "not be noticed". Bad things regularly happened to people that were _noticed_.

Her attitude changed in soon after the Bush administration started their wars in the middle east and the PATRIOT act was passed. When that came up in conversation one day, she suddenly got really serious and quietly said, "It's happening again." The same environment she had fled from the USSR was happening here, and it _terrified_ her.

There was a change. The USA has always had problems, but there defiantly was a change that happened somewhat recently. I've been trying to fight it ever since, but all that has done is convince me that it's going to get a lot uglier before it any true reform is possible.

</comment></comment><comment> Digit-Al As an Englishman, I have a couple of questions for you Americans on here.

1) Does anyone know who came up with these "civil asset forfeitures"? (Personally, they seem most un-civil to me.)

2) Can any of you defend America as "the land of the free" when more of the population are in prison than in almost any other country in the word and the police not only have the power to strip you of your property and assets without even needing a solid reason, but can shoot you dead and barely get a slap on the wrist?

Not having a go at America or Americans, but it seems to me that those who truly believe it to be a land of the free are deluding themselves.

[edit: damn keyboard]

<comment><USER46> It's never been "a land of the free." The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights because it can't be easily reconciled with slavery.

EDIT: I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. If you think it is wrong at least state why it is wrong.

<comment><USER47> Ridiculous. The reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the constitution proper is that the enumerated powers clause states that the federal government is assumed to have no authority other than that explicitly granted to it. The Federalists were concerned that as soon as you started listing rights that were specifically protected, people would get the idea that those were the ONLY rights protected, which was contrary to the principle on which the nation was founded.

<comment><USER48> I wish I could upvote you more than once. This is an important factor that during the foundation of our country that seems to be playing out in real time in our modern times, and it's a discussion that needs to be had.

The government needs to be reminded the people are what give it any legitimacy in the first place, and such blatant unconstitutionality needs to be prosecuted and denounced loudly and publicly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry. The missing scruples here could fill several large containers.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, sure, let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments. Blacklisting individuals isn't going to solve any problem whatsoever and we run the risk of alienating a whole bunch of people who will then might go out and do even worst things than writing software for questionable companies.

We need laws that prevent those things. That's the only way this can be resolved. We're a huge community with an equally huge influence and resources. Let's coordinate and use our power for a good cause, instead of resurrecting witch-hunting practices.

<comment><USER51> The laws you're talking about will never occur if the people making those laws are non-technical. As an industry we need to self-regulate, and have our self- regulation have the weight of law behind it. This system works fairly well, for example, in the medical profession, where you can lose your license to practice medicine based on principles set forth by other doctors.

<comment><USER52> That's essentially an argument for a professional licensure system for software development.

Setting aside that professional licensure requirements are anathema to the spirit of the hacker movement, they would likely have prevented the creation of a massive pool of technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Even that proposal would stifle innovation.

However, what's being suggested by the OP is not even a professional licensure system.

It's mob justice.

The difference is that professional licensure organizations follow fixed sets of rules, procedures, and principles. These rules are established, agreed upon, and promulgated in advance of enforcement. Most importantly, the procedures generally allow for the basics of due process.

Mob justice has no set of fixed procedure, and no assurance of due process. Its enforcement is governed by caprice, and subject to a set of arbitrary, inconsistent, and constantly shifting "rules."

The OP is proposing an arbitrarily enforced "refusal to hire" policy people from an ill-defined set of "undesirable" companies.

First, there are no rules for establishing which companies are undesirable.

What fields of technology exactly are undesirable? And exactly how closely did an engineer have to be involved with such technology?

Second, many companies develop "dual use" technology, which has both civilian and military uses. This includes manufacturers of everything from CPUs to jet engines. Is the designer of a gyroscope used on spacecraft and on missiles banished from our ranks?

Third, many of these companies are also huge conglomerates. GE makes jet engines, as well as washers and dryers.

Where do we draw the line?

Should a GE employee be blacklisted under this "system"? One from Intel? How about Facebook for taking money from the CIA? Google for Boston Dynamics?

Most importantly, who decides, and how?

If it's determined by whim and popularity, as proposed by the OP, then I want absolutely no part of it.

<comment><USER49> I agree that these are all significant challenges. However I believe that in the absence of a licensing body, we as professionals can still reach consensus-based conclusions on minimum standards of professional ethics.

And I suspect very strongly that the engineers on this particular project would have clearly violated any standards of professional ethics we could agree on.

<comment><USER52> How, where, and by what metric is this "consensus" established? What if you and I disagree? What if Microsoft and Apple disagree? Who decides?

Civil war amongst software developers, with utter lack of due process, and ostracism as punishment are not as pleasant to the ear as "consensus," but that's the end result of what you're proposing.

This, of course, misses the central flaw in the proposal: If "good" companies refuse to hire engineers with work history at "bad" companies, you'd be forcing the very engineers who now want to do work you consider "good" back into doing work you consider "bad."

Setting aside the horrific personal implications this ham-fisted approach would have, by its very nature, a refusal to hire policy would have the exact opposite effect that you intend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Do you want to be called pigs? Because this is how you get called pigs.

I'm a very law-and-order guy, but I have zero sympathy for police departments who pull shenanigans like this and then bitch and moan that their communities don't respect them. This gives limitless ammo to critics who want to paint police as noncaring, profit-driven thugs, probably endangering officers' lives in the process.

What an utterly despicable, contemptible move. It's simply not defensible in any way.

<comment><USER54> They don't care what they are called -- they just sit back and count the dough

<comment><USER53> I bet the men and women on the street care a whole lot what they're called by the people they're supposed to protect. I bet they don't like it when their kid comes home crying because the other kids add school make fun of him for having a police officer for a parent. They're the ones who need to speak up - get their union involved if necessary - and tell their bureaucracies to knock it off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This can't possibly be legal or even technically feasible. The victim can call her bank and report a fraudulent transaction, which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to defend in court. Surely banks can catch on and frontload an "identity protection" mechanism that'll simply block transactions from anything matching "ERAD" or however they identify themselves to the ACH.

It's doubtful that local or state PDs have enough political pull or money to battle banks over this through the court system.

<comment><USER56> > which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to > defend in court

Your argument could equally be applied against regular (cash) civil asset forfeiture. The outcome is the same either way.

"Sorry, it was authorised by the authorities, nothing we can do".

You'll be short of the money until you sue, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture. When you do sue, you'll have to prove that you're entitled to the money, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture. What you get back will be less legal fees, same as in regular civil asset forfeiture.

<comment><USER57> > it was authorised by the authorities

It was _not_ authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud.

<comment><USER58> > It was not authorized by the card holder or a court order, so it is fraud.

Sorry, you're wrong. I've had the IRS steal money directly from my bank account to pay for taxes (and fees, and fines) I didn't owe. The bank won't help you, and I had to pay a tax lawyer $1,800 to get back $3,200 in taxes (and fines) from the IRS for a stock sale I never made.

The bank treats withdrawals by government agencies as legitimate transactions. They won't recognize it as fraud, and you won't get the money back from the bank.

<comment><USER57> I think the IRS is a special case; I'd add them to the list I gave above.

A local police department or city government does _not_ have this power.

Update: few more examples: [http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage- garnishm...](http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/bankruptcy/wage-garnishment- amount.html), apparently this is quite common; still don't think PD can do it for this reason

<comment><USER59> The IRS should NOT be a special case. They should also pass trough a court (for what it's worth).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This should firmly cement law enforcement's status as thieves rather than civi servants. As if civil asset forfeiture didn't do that already, already making police the #1 class of thieves in the US: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops- took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/)

To steal and murder! The correct police motto.

</comment><comment><USER61> As a libertarian, I've seen a long line of articles that make me go Holy Cow!

It's gotten so I feel bad about it. I even apologize. Each time, I think "Well that's it, there's nothing that could go beyond this."

Holy cow!

Several years ago I sold a small lot which had an office on it. The guy who bought it paid cash. Cash is kinda unusual for this kind of transaction, so I asked him where he got it. He told me that he was a general contractor and had been saving for over ten years.

Then he told me that the previous month, while he was moving his savings to his mom's house, he got pulled over for a bad taillight.

They almost took all of his money. Holy cow! This was my introduction to Civil Asset Forfeiture.

There are many parts of this story that are amazing. Right away I note that if you're truly wealthy? You have nothing to fear. You have enough assets to pay the one lawyer who golfs with the local DA and get this thing fixed quickly. But if you're not? If you're like my friend saving up for a large purchase? Good freaking luck.

Read an article once from a former LE guy. I remember one of his points. He said that cops are hunters. They hunt bad guys. We are their prey.

As we are finding out, the definition of "bad guy" is wonderfully malleable. Just about anybody can be one. The more political power you have (whether through contacts, as a politician, or by having money), the less likely you are to be one.

There has been a long tradition in the states of assuming the best when dealing with the local constable. They have tough jobs, usually the training isn't terribly difficult, it's a good spot for people who like guns and violence but want to be one of the good guys.

This tradition is coming to a close. While the constable himself might be a nice enough, stand-up guy, the system as a whole is terribly corrupt and overbearing. I might go so far as to say evil.

This cannot continue. Reforms are desperately needed.

<comment><USER62> > There has been a long tradition in the states of assuming the best when > dealing with the local constable.

Heh! I came from a country where police torture people routinely. Any suspect who lands in police custody has a good chance of being tortured. They know how to do it, so it causes psychological distress but doesn't leave huge marks on the body. My friend and I once caught a pickpocket and took him to a police station. Cops were bored and proceeded to torture him behind a closed door in order for him to reveal where his buddies were hiding. At first we were so happy we caught the tiny criminal. By the end of the evening I felt pretty sorry for the guy.

Anyway, that is how I see cops. Rationally I know they are not all like that, and we are not in <oldcountry> anymore. But deep down instinctively I still have that fear of them. It is scary and dissappointing that people in this country are slowly starting to adopt the same attitude toward police because of how police is acting.

> While the constable himself might be a nice enough, stand-up guy, the system > as a whole is terribly corrupt and overbearing.

If constable ever kept this mouth shut when he saw their co-workers abuse their power, they have stopped being a good stand-up guy at that very instant.

<comment><USER61> Yes, I understand that. Every system has good folks and bad folks. But at some point, systems reach a state where the people trying to do good in the world are actually part of the problem, not part of the solution. At that point, the system itself is bad.

In the states it matters whether you torture people. Sure, bad folks get away with it, but if you get caught, you can be assured that the system will work against you. Same goes, mostly, for killing people without reason. Several public incidents over the last few years have shown this. I think the trick is to have video footage handy.

False arrest? Not so much. Police harassment? I'm sure there are cases brought to trial, but it's really rare. Taking your money when you didn't do anything? As we can see, that's already part of the system.

So over time, the system slips into being, for lack of a better word, "evil". More and more stuff that was out of bounds becomes normal. Sadly, I honestly think the reason for this is just officers trying to do a good job. Maybe cutting a corner here or there. No evil intent required.

This is going to sound weird, but if you'd like a good example of how the US traditionally felt about Law Enforcement, watch a few episodes of the old TV show "The Andy Griffith Show" with Don Knotts in there. Perhaps follow that up with a couple of episodes of "Dragnet"

These are highly-sanitized 60s shows, but it's clear that for a population who had most men return from armed combat in WWII or Vietnam, over-zealous macho policemen were a cause of great amusement. When real crimes did occur, the cops were considered just part of the population, perhaps with more analytical skills and with a job most people wouldn't like, but not that different from anybody else.

I believe that attitude started turning in the mid 70s with the Dirty Harry movies. Crime was considered a terrible problem, and the courts were considered to be advocating letting criminals rampage. Then we had the organized crime mania. Then drugs. With each public fear-fest, legislators gave the police more and more power -- just to use against the terrible threat of the current day, of course. It didn't work out that way. Now we have cops using organized crime and drug laws against some yokel growing 3 pot plants in his basement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> "News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state.

It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes."

This is truly disgusting. I have no words.

</comment><comment><USER64> You have to wonder how this works.

Like how does the officer know how much you have and how much is 'appropriate' to confiscate?

I wonder if it does a series of authorizations looking for some sort of upper limit to figure out how much money is in the account and then they determine what to take from that?

Either way, this goes way beyond reason for what a trooper should be able to do on the side of a road during a traffic stop.

<comment><USER65> The officer doesn't have to know. Or care. He just takes every penny the system allows and lets you fight the DA over it at a later date. Even if the money is returned, it doesn't cost the cop anything to try. And if they keep the money, some moeny goes back to the police department.

<comment><USER64> Yes, but my statement was more of a technical one regarding how such a system might work.

I am speaking about the method used to determine how much is in an account and what can be withdrawn, because they can't check your balance without a pin number, and if their system is issuing multiple repeated authorizations, what protections banks have in place that might block these sorts of transactions to prevent theft.

<comment><USER42> Fun fact, when running credit or debit cards you can actually get the available balance on them. I've made the mistake of going to the gas station when my checking account only had a couple of dollars in it, ran the card at the pump and it let me put in exactly enough gas to 0 out my account and no more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> One more reason to keep a reserve of Bitcoins. With a hardware wallet like a Trezor your bitcoins are secured on a physical device with a PIN and password. The police in the US can do civil asset forfeiture on gold, cash, and now bank accounts so obviously a more secure asset is needed. Bitcoin is that secure asset that can be moved in a few minutes in any amount to anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER67> This seems looks like it was designed to be abused. If this is used, their must be additional training for cops on how to make a seizure decision, and major repercussions if they seize money from a person who is then proven to be innocent.

</comment><comment><USER68> > News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. It shows the state is > paying ERAD Group Inc. [...] 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol > seizes.

I think that might even be worse then the police being able to sieze all of you money.

<comment><USER69> It is incredibly mercenary isn't it? Does the device just send the request off to a call center where the ERAD folks do the actual bank account drains? How are they able to justify such a huge commission? Who in the government negotiated this? Did they get a nice cushy job in the ERAD group after they retired from government work?

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> So we can't carry cash, because they'll seize that directly. This device could probably do some sort of run around the new chip system in cards. Bitcoin is nearly useless in the real world. So where does that leave us? Google & Apple Pay on our phones? At least our phones can be password protected.

<comment><USER71> And you'll get an obstruction of justice charge if you don't supply the password then and then be found in contempt of court if you don't give it up when you're before a judge.

<comment><USER72> Not in this case. The police legally can't pull you over and force you to unlock your phone via password. They'd have to go through a court process, and that's precisely where any attempt at theft will fall apart (more specifically, as the law stands today the police won't even attempt this line of approach because they know it'd fall apart in the court system before they're able to steal the money).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> This is the worst _systemic_ abuse of police authority in contravention of the constitution - ever. Innocent accused will have to spend money in attorney's fees, lost work, lost interest, opportunity costs ... to retrieve their property. This is essentially an unlawful seizure.

</comment><comment><USER74> As a canadian reading this, my instinctive reactions were: 1\. Is this a parody of some kind?

After it turned out it's legit news:

2\. So why they simply aren't maxing out people credit cards too? I mean, by the same flawed logic, it would stop crime if people are more in debt. You can of course prove you aren't going to use your credit card for further crimes and have the money returned.

Then again, I should stop giving people ideas.

</comment><comment> nappy-doo My understanding with asset seizure is that you can show why the money was yours, and it is returned. What happens to the 7.7% taken by the servicer? Is it automatically returned as well?

<comment><USER75> The state refunds it to you, the 7.7% percent is the fee the state paid in order to withhold your funds so conveniently. The trick is you have to prove that those withheld funds are wrongfully withheld (the burden of proof is on the accused in this case) without access to the seized assets. In short, the 7.7% is negligible because in the cases of this abuse, you probably weren't getting that money back anyways.

<comment> nappy-doo What a great scam!

I need a state sponsored monopoly where my income stream is non-recourse without chargeback possibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> This is outrageous. The police can get away with this because they have a weapon, a gun, which can kill you if you resist. Or at the very least, call other cops, arrest you and throw you in jail and ruin your life while you have to prove your you are not guilty & try to get your money back.

This defies all logic and is a clear example of the corrupt state this country is in (USA).

<comment><USER77> > The police can get away with this because they have a weapon

I disagree. Police can do it because they have the power of the state behind them; the state can try you, imprison you, ruin your life, seize your other assets, etc. That policeman's gun is a minor detail and is rarely used.

Most importantly, they have the power of the state because voters permit it. Do you know if this is allowed in your state? Who are your state legislators? Are you going to contact them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I think part of this is just shoddy reporting from a local news source, I believe this is tech they're talking about.

[https://www.erad-group.com/fci](https://www.erad-group.com/fci)

While the implications here are certainly pretty creepy, this seems more like something to use in investigations of money laundering, etc.

<comment><USER79> Gosh this copy from the linked web site seems like everything that's wrong with products in this space, "Criminals today use an array of payment cards to purchase, transfer or conceal billions of dollars of illicit funds from Law Enforcement"

Which criminals? The ones a local policeman happens to stop in a routine checkpoint?

I'd like to see actual stats on what percentage of everyday criminals who are met by local law enforcement "conceal billions of dollars".

I'd bet this percentage is so small the tool does more harm to the general populace than good on the off chance such a criminal is caught.

<comment><USER34> _Which criminals? The ones a local policeman happens to stop in a routine checkpoint?_

Yes, US citizens are criminals by definition of law, apparently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Turning law enforcement into highwaymen.

</comment><comment><USER78> Are you required to surrender your credit carts, etc to the cops during a traffic stop? What if you refuse?

<comment><USER81> Its mostly for use against prepaid gift cards and the like. Also those cheesy pre-paid credit cards.

Supposedly its already in use at borders. The news is that now if you get pulled over in OK the cops will now keep any gift cards they find.

Ever wonder why there's such a push to get RFID everywhere? If they RF scan your car and find a card in the trunk now you're at minimum guilty of obstruction.

<comment><USER55> > If they RF scan your car and find a card in the trunk now you're at minimum > guilty of obstruction.

Errrrrr not really! 4th Amendment gives you the right to refuse a search of your person or vehicle. Even if the cops do find something illegal during a search you've clearly but politely refused, your refusal will give your defense attorney grounds to ask the court to throw out any evidence found in the trunk.

<comment><USER82> The constitution also gives you the right to a presumption of innocence based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States) but the authorities dont seem to care much about that either

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Remember this is without trial, without immediate oversight.

Hopefully the incredulity of this will put a spotlight on civil forfeiture and end it once and for all.

But it probably will take a decade to get to the supreme court and this will ruin lives in the meanwhile.

And then there is who is going to fill the next three supreme court judge slots and how they feel about "the police can do no wrong" authoritarianism.

<comment><USER84> This is a very naive view. It will ruin life, some people will protest, but the majority, will, as with the proverbial frog in the hot water, stay quiete. And it will just be one additional step toward a totalitarian state. It's just tiny steps. It will take time. But here the regularity matters.

The simple existence of the Patriot Act, which destroys the very basis of the US legal system (the habeas corpus) and ignore blatantly the constitution, proves that the Suprem Court is not the democratic safety net it's supposed to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I can't think of a better reason to stay out of Oklahoma.

<comment><USER34> I can't think of a better reason to stay out of the US.

<comment><USER86> I could think some.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> > "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that > money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," > Vincent said about any money seized.

Literally the opposite of how presumed innocence is supposed to work. Furthermore, good luck mounting a decent case now that they have all your money.

</comment><comment><USER87> As a Norwegian/Australian, I'm just shaking my head reading this. Sorry, I have nothing but reactionary drivel to add - but I wouldn't be surprised if this was to further (if that's even possible) increase US gun violence. For personal protection against robbery. This now appears as a marginally valid reason for your gun ownership; if they're going to take all your assets on a whim, leaving you with nothing to fend for, what have you got to lose? I mean, how do you survive in the "no handout" US with no money anyway?

This is the rich looking after the rich in the most corrupt and reprehensible way possible, see how this is going to work out for you as resentment grows in the population roots.

<comment><USER88> > "no handout" US

Roughly $2trillion of the nation's $3.8trillion spending in the 2015 [1] budget was healthcare, social security, food assistance, and unemployment. This doesn't include _any_ of the substantial spending on welfare and 'handouts' as you call them by state and local governments.

The problem isn't that we aren't willing to redistribute money, the problem is that the politicians do a crap job of it, and do it in ways that often seem specifically designed to keep the poor people poor.

[1] [https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget- graphic....](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic.png)

<comment><USER87> Wow, this was a very useful breakdown. I certainly didn't realise the magnitude of the social spending. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you."

The so called presumption of guilt. I am sure everyone has the proofs and doesn't need the money while they are held by the police.

</comment><comment><USER89> "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you."

\- Well my grandma saved it for me when I was a child. - Prove it. - Sorry but she's dead and I moved it to a new bank account two years ago. - Yeah sure.

This is just disgusting.

<comment><USER90> Your comment illustrates a complete misunderstanding of the burden of proof in these cases.

In the situation you describe a simple bank statement from "2 years ago" would be more than enough to meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard for these cases.

<comment><USER91> More than a misunderstanding: an intentional abuse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> DHS' page on this:

[https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card- read...](https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-reader-aids- seizing-fraudulent-cards)

</comment><comment><USER93> Cops and robbers really means something different these days.

<comment><USER94> Johnny: OK Billy, lets play Cops and Robbers

Billy: SURE! I get to be the Cop and the Robber, you play the innocent citizen and I'll take all your money after pulling you over for speeding!

Johnny & Billy simultaneously: YAAAYYYYYYYYY

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> What does this say about the security of our electronic funds? Gold bugs are going to have a field day with this.

<comment><USER71> Banks are to your personal funds what 'the cloud' is to your personal data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> What are the practical means of defense against these thieves with badges?

<comment><USER34> Be white and wear a suit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> This is physically repulsive and literal theft by the state. Do other developed countries (EU, Canada, etc.) have similar laws?

</comment><comment><USER98> It's called a flyover state for a reason.

</comment><comment><USER99> > _It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and > scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes._

If your cash is seized the police will go ahead and keep the full amount less the 7.7% fee. So what happens if the person is proven innocent? Does the police dept have to use its own funding to repay the 7.7% fee?

This seems unlikely to me (but that is based on no facts). Or does the company have to repay the money? It would seem like they could legally say they preformed a service and should not be required to refund the money.

Sadly it looks like if you are seen as "potential guilty" and your assets are seized, even if you are proven innocent you still lost 7.7% of your money. Then tack on legal fees associated with proving your innocent.....

</comment><comment><USER100> Seems like a good use case for Bitcoin.

<comment><USER101> Bitcoin support is coming in 2017.

<comment><USER86> Just keep your private keys encrypted. Ever heard of Trezor? Encrypted paper wallets? Brain wallets?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> "If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past"

Absolutely terrible. Finally bitcoin et al have a legitimate use - <USER2> your property from grubby government hands.

</comment><comment><USER103> It blows my mind this is even technically possible. Surely the target needs to enter a pin or something in order for the bank to authorise the transaction.

That said seizing cash whether physical notes or electronic must be subject to due process and a court order.

</comment><comment><USER104> >We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent

Serious question, where does the money go and how is it spent? Who is it spent by?

We do have a process for the confiscation of proceeds of crime here in Australia. I believe the money goes into a big pot controlled by a federal government department ([https://www.afsa.gov.au/](https://www.afsa.gov.au/) ie not the police) to be spent on community projects. I am sure that there is plenty of scope for waste etc but if nothing else the system would seem to do a good job of removing any financial incentives for the police to seize stuff.

</comment><comment><USER105> This is total, corrupt bullshit. How the fuck is a traffic cop supposed to ascertain the origin of the money in your accounts, let alone if it was from the "the commission of a crime?"

<comment><USER25> > "We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting. We're > gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway > that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your > business."

If you seem suspicious, or if they claim so, then your money suddenly is not yours any more, until you prove their source. If you can't prove the legitimity of your money, they become fair game to be confiscated. In this whole process you personally are not charged with anything, but the confiscation is triggered by their being suspicious about you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> Repeat after me:

"No, officer, you may not see my wallet. I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or my property. I furthermore, refuse to have any further conversation with you. May I go now, or am I under arrest?"

Works every time for me.

</comment><comment><USER107> So they can drain your bank account... Then you'll need to hire a lawyer (after you've lost all your money) to prove you're innocent? Does ERAD give back the 7% fee? This has turned policemen into highwaymen.

</comment><comment><USER108> So a highway patrol officer can ask to see my license, and I'm supposed to show it.

Now they're asking to see my entire wallet?! I'm assuming we're all well within our rights to refuse to hand over our wallets?

<comment><USER91> This is a good question and I like a non-IANAL response. As far as I can tell police officers assume any resistance to request as proof of guilt. This kind of thinking has happened historically in the past and there's no reason to believe it's not happening now.

<comment><USER109> I believe searching your car and searching your person constitute two entirely different searches. If your wallet is on the seat next to you, the police could theoretically use that as grounds for a search. If your wallet is in your pocket, and they take your wallet off you as part of a search of your vehicle, you'd probably have a better chance of successfully claiming unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm not a lawyer either though, so take that for what it is worth.

<comment><USER86> In many places you won't have a chance of doing anything. Just do a quick search in youtube and watch all the people being robbed, beaten, raped, and killed by the police. That's the power they have now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> Reason #19836 not to go to Oklahoma...

</comment><comment><USER111> So you're guilty until proven innocent, police are spending the money, and 7.7% is going to the manufacturer; sounds like a racket!

</comment><comment><USER112> They figured that if they can steal your cash without any consequences that they should go further, wow. What will it be next, your home?

<comment><USER113> That's been a thing for a very long time now. Heck there was even a case where a family's son was caught selling a small amount of heroin on their front porch so the police threw them out on the street and stole their house.

[http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust- hous...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house- seizure/)

What's more shocking is the following quote from that article:

>Philadelphia officials seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> >"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting," Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. "We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."

So basically... guilty until proven innocent?

</comment><comment><USER115> > If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that > money it will be given back to you.

I am dumbfounded by this statement.

</comment><comment><USER116> Sounds like there's now a market in Oklahoma for cards that are debit-only and will automatically reject all credit transactions.

<comment><USER117> They'll just use pinless debit

</comment></comment><comment><USER118> I think this is the first time I've thought it would be useful to have a device like the ill-fated Coin. Not that I keep money on prepaid cards, but if I did, it would be nice to back up my cards at home so that if stopped by the police I could pre-emptively delete the memory of the meta-card.

</comment><comment><USER94> If citizens united proved that money is speech, does civil forfeiture not impede on the first amendment?

<comment><USER90> Citizens United did not prove that simple ownership of money is speech. So no, it does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> Why should I have to prove anything about myself to the government if I'm not suspected of a crime? Merely having some of what everyone else has - money, drugs, etc - doesn't itself make me suspect. It just makes me a target.

</comment><comment><USER120> The article headline is an obscene lie. "OHP Uses New Device To Seize Money Used During The Commission Of A Crime"

The article is a balanced analysis that speaks truth to power, but the headline is statist propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER121> 7.7%!? WOW! They really hustled those cops. I always hear how difficult it is to work with schools, law enforcement, basically most gov agencies. Surprising to see how well that company played the cops in this instance.

<comment><USER54> The cops don't get played at all. They still make more than they would otherwise with this approach -- which used to be zero.

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> Oklahoma is not an outlier:

[http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/](http://ij.org/report/policing-for- profit/)

</comment><comment><USER123> Remember, tribute is required when traveling through the United States.

Wow, so it's now safest to travel around the country with your encrypted Bitcoin hid steganographically....

</comment><comment><USER124> Isn't there a limit to what police can ask you to provide during a traffic stop? How is it legal that they can ask to see your debit / credit cards?

<comment><USER125> Yes, there is - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop)

Consider, however, that the law in theory differs very much from its practice. In a Terry stop, just like most encounters with the police, the officer holds all the cards. Non-compliance can be met with force, and there's always the threat of being charged for obstruction or whatever else the policeman thinks up, based on their word alone(which has more weight than yours in court). Policemen are given a wide latitude to act, and a good faith presumption to all their actions, so they can get away with stretching any applicable law to its breaking point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> I wonder if the same companies that make these cards also make the devices that allow extrication of money from seized cards.

</comment><comment><USER127> This is pretty horrible. How can this happen.... Taking advantage of poor, the weak, it is just the lowest.

</comment><comment><USER128> >"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money

aka Guilty until proven innocent.

</comment><comment><USER129> Does anyone know if pre-paid cards will be required to go chip-in-card due to the EMV liability shift?

</comment><comment><USER130> > We would be happy to introduce you to some of our clients. Please call us at > 571-207-ERAD (3723)

Call now!

</comment><comment><USER131> Woo. I wonder if this news could spark a wee run on the banks?

</comment><comment><USER132> Booster for crypto-currency

</comment><comment><USER133> I guess I'm never visiting Oklahoma.

</comment><comment><USER134> Yet one more reason to stay away from a shithole like Oklahoma. All that jesus worshiping has completely fried their brains.

</comment><comment><USER135> From my cold dead fingers.

</comment><comment><USER136> Seems legit.

</comment><comment><USER137> puke

</comment><comment><USER138> The police will keep encroaching until they meet some kind of resistance, which will not easily materialize because people here would be the first ones to utterly condemn respect-instilling reprisals.

If everybody else around you accepts to get arbitrarily molested in the butt, you either accept it too, or else you move out.

I have personally chosen to move out. Unfortunately, you can see the United Nations, USAID, international NGOs and similar organizations coming over here to convince the locals to accept similar abuse from their own government, by advocating "the rule of law". Of course, there are also the Christian organizations advocating to the locals to offer their other cheek to such thefting police.

Since I cannot keep "moving away", at some point I will have no other option than to finally make a stand.

The _Art of War_ says that the secret of success consists in never letting the enemy choose the time and the place. You must always choose the time and the place by yourself. Therefore, it suggests that it is us who must schedule forceful attacks against the police. Seriously, I am all for it.

<comment><USER139> The chance of a random fight against police accomplishing anything good is 0%. The chance it makes things worse is 100%.

And organizing violence is not particularly easy. For something like civil forfeiture, it would be much easier to just follow the democratic process.

So collect signatures, call representatives, state legislators, and stage protests at city halls. A lot less painful for all parties, and a greater chance of success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> They took a whole Christian band? Are they going to be shackled and forced to play county fairs and police fund raisers for the rest of their lives?

<comment><USER141> Why is his statement so ungrammatical?

<comment><USER8> I think these people get only few seconds to make their point. They have to make it quickly while using all the right buzzwords to hit the note. Also it is a good idea to keep it low on details because they the opponents focus on the details he got wrong while conveniently avoiding the larger important point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> What the fuck is happening to this country?

<comment><USER143> People want large, busybody police departments and they don't want to pay the taxes that entails.

Police departments found a way to fund themselves without pissing off anyone who matters politically.

<comment><USER144> Police unions want large busybody departments and they don't care who pays. They just know that once a new police officer is hired SOMEONE will pay.

<comment><USER145> No, people want large, busybody departments. It makes them feel safe. They don't want to increase their taxes, though, especially in conservative states such as Oklahoma.

<comment><USER146> I don't think robbery makes anyone feel safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER147> From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized.

Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prove that i have the right to have them. OK = backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people that keep voting for these types of idiots.

<comment><USER148> > _backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people_

Attacking an entire population of people like that is a nasty breach of HN's civility rule. Please don't ever post anything like this again.

It's the upvoters of such comments who should most be ashamed of themselves. The fact that people here feel angry about police seizing cash without due process can, and must, be kept distinct from cheap slurs. That takes a certain (rather tiny) degree of self-discipline, which is a minimum requirement for participating here.

<comment><USER147> i did not attack them, i said "apparently" meaning it would seem that they are based on the things they allow and agree to. if you allow backwoods laws to be passed and enforced... well you know, if the shoe fits.

furthermore being called backwoods is only an attack if you choose it to be, some people don't mind being unsophisticated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER149> This is the crux here. The "rule of law" is equivalent to "rule of men in black with automatic weapons". If you call the police, you are just outsourcing your violence to the men in black uniforms with automatic weapons. Because at the end of the day, they will use force. The "rule of law" is not "let's have a reasonable conversation about the issues".

<comment><USER150> "Rule of law" is supposed to mean that, absent adherence to its letter, self- defense with weapons of your own is not only proper but essential in order for liberty to persevere.

Although your anarchic mindset is appealing to me, I'm less ready to give up on the phrase and concept of "rule of law," which I think still has a place in a free information age.

<comment><USER151> It's literally meant to mean the opposite of that.

<comment><USER150> Huh?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER152> If only we could get similar technology in London?

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now- the...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global- money-laundering-centre-for-the-drug-trade-says-crime-expert-10366262.html)

</comment><comment><USER153> Welcome to the post-Reagan era, kids. This stuff really took off during the 80s war on drugs. (which is about as successful as the war on alcohol was - for gangsters dealing)

If only Thatcherism / Reaganism never happened... (and Laffer, Friedman and all the other related right wing propaganda that's been catapulted down our throats)

I suppose things will eventually get bad enough that people will eventually realize "Everything that demented old man proposed was wrong?!?" (demented as in literal "alzheimer's patient")

<comment><USER154> Have you got a specific beef with Friedman, or are you just generally complaining about prominent conservatives from the 80s? What position did he take that would support civil asset forfeiture?

<comment><USER153> No, you're right. Just complaining about right wing thuggery in general :-)

<comment><USER154> Ah, well you might want to stick to a more defensible complaint - because two sentences is all it took to make you look like an uninformed loon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER155> The DHS says this is only for prepaid cards, which are more likely to be fraudulent: [https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card- read...](https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/prepaid-card-reader-aids- seizing-fraudulent-cards)

<comment><USER156> Which are used mostly by poor people since banking is often out of bounds for them. Nice we attack the people who cannot pay.

Sure glad the local police didn't have one of those when they were doing their first of the month car stops.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best payment gateway for storing credit cards? - <AUTHOR>

I'm needing to implement a pay as you go service where you'll put in $5 and that amount gets used up over time as you use the service.  Then the user can have an option to auto-refill when they run out.
With this, I'd need a payment gateway that supports storing credit card info and billing at irregular times.  Gateways like Authorize.Net can support recurring billing, but it is only at fixed intervals like a day, week, month, etc.
I'd also like a payment gateway that has low monthly minimums.  This isn't going to be doing a lot of volume.
Some options I've seen...
* Authorize.Net's CIM service... haven't seen pricing on it, probably varies with each reseller.
* Braintree's Vault... comes highly recommended, but last I heard they still have a minimum of $200 in monthly transaction fees.
* TrustCommerce's Citadel service... read it is $10/month with $0.10 per stored card per month.  With a "pay and refill" type service, that could get costly if the user uses the service once then disappears.  Would perhaps remove old card after 6 months.
Anyone know of any others? <comment><USER2> I use the authorize CIM for this purpose. It works well. It's just an additional monthly fee on top of the other stuff you pay, so it's not any more expensive to charge cards you have stored.

</comment><comment><USER3> Braintree minimums depend on which of their services you use. See <http://bit.ly/braintree-pricing></comment>